Assessment of Students Support Services Centre Approach to Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment of Substance Abuse Management in a Private Institution of Higher Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Substance abuse among young adults is a major public health issue which can cause significant damage to their mental health. The screening, brief, interventions and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is a public health prevention tool used in identifying persons at risk of substance use and abuse. This study assessed the approach to screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment of substance abuse management in a higher institution of learning. The study adopted a qualitative key informant’s interviewer assessment method. Key informants from the Student Support Service (SSS) Centre were interviewed to assess the SBIRT management approach of substance abuse in a university setting. The interview guide had a total of 5 themes with 8 questions and 14 follow-up questions. Interviews and observation of key informants was used to obtain research information. Data was analyzed using thematic analysis. This study revealed that the study population utilized reliable drug tests, students’ performance, behavior and appearance of the students as an approach to screening students for substance abuse. Management was dependent on level of risk of the student determined from the screening process. Substance use disorders varying from moderate to high risk were given counselling therapy; patients with severe risk dependency were referred to specialty treatment (rehabilitation) for further treatment. The SBIRT approach in the treatment of students at risk of substance abuse have been found to be useful. There are however challenges with students complying to treatment which needs to be addressed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".